Supreme Court upholds validity of amendments by states to carry on with bovine races

The SC had outlawed Jallikattu and bullock-cart racing in May 2014 in the case Animal Welfare Board of India vs A. Nagaraja and Others.

Subsequently, on January 7, 2016, the Environment Ministry issued a notification prohibiting exhibition or training of bulls as performing animals.

“However,” the notification stated, “an exception was carved and it was specified…that bulls might be continued to be trained as performing animals at events such as Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu and Bullock Cart Races in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and Gujarat in the manner…or practice traditionally under the customs or as part of culture in any part of the country…. This exception, however, was made subject to certain conditions seeking to reduce pain and suffering of bulls while being used in such sports.”

The January 2016 notification was challenged before the SC.

On Thursday, the bench, also comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and C T Ravikumar, accepted the contention that at the time the decision in Nagaraja case was delivered, the manner in which Jallikattu was performed did breach the provisions of the 1960 Act, and thus conducting such sports was impermissible. It said the amendments minimise cruelty to animals in these sports.

The court said, “In our opinion, the expressions Jallikattu, Kambala and Bull Cart Race as introduced by the Amendment Acts of the three states have undergone substantial change in the manner they were used to be practiced or performed and the factual conditions that prevailed at the time the A Nagaraja…judgment was delivered cannot be equated with the present situation. We cannot come to the conclusion that in the changed circumstances, absolutely no pain or suffering would be inflicted upon the bulls while holding these sports.

“But we are satisfied that the large part of pain-inflicting practices, as they prevailed in the manner these sports were performed in the pre-amendment period, have been substantially diluted by introduction of these statutory instruments”.

Thus, the order said, “the argument that Amendment Acts are void because they seek to override the judgment of A. Nagaraja…cannot be sustained, as the basis of that judgment having regard to the nature and manner in which the offending activities were carried on has been altered”.

The court said it is satisfied on the basis of materials disclosed that Jallikkattu has been going on in Tamil Nadu “for at least (the) last few centuries”.

The judgment stated, “… but whether this has become (an) integral part of Tamil culture or not requires religious, cultural and social analysis in greater detail, which in our opinion is an exercise that cannot be undertaken by the Judiciary. The question as to whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is to preserve cultural heritage of a particular state is a debatable issue which has to be concluded in the House of the People…Since legislative exercise has already been undertaken and Jallikattu has been found to be part of cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu, we would not disrupt this view of the legislature”.

The court also refused to accept the A Nagaraja view that performance of Jallikattu is not a part of the cultural heritage of the people of Tamil Nadu and said, “We do not think there was sufficient material before the court for coming to this conclusion.”